Do you like this story?
What is your pet’s companionship worth?
By Gina Spadafori
December 2, 2006
Changes have been coming for a long time when it comes to placing the value of a companion animal in a court of law. From an Associated Press piece (the piece is long on the anecdote and short on the larger issue, so make sure you push through to the second page):
In recent years, trial courts in Florida, New York, Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington have carved out a category for household pets that is somewhere between property and people.
In Washington state, an appeals court last May created a new tort — or reason for suing — called “malicious injury to a pet,” allowing someone to collect emotional distress damages. The case involved three teenage boys who doused a cat with gasoline and lit it on fire. It had to be euthanized.
Until very recently, there hasn’t been much in the way of appellate court opinions that lawyers can point to, though, according to animal law expert Geordie Duckler, a Portland, Ore., lawyer.
These changes have wide-ranging impact, of course. Some argue that increasing the monetary value of a companion animal killed could lead to higher costs for veterinary care, because of higher costs for malpractice insurance. I’m not sure where it’ll all lead, but I’m happy we’re starting to recognize that companion animals are not “things.”
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Here’s a good recent one from Kansas, as well:
http://www.kscourts.org/kscase...../93698.htm
In this case a dog’s hip was dislocated as it was being groomed. Although the court did reiterate that dogs are personal property, they allowed the cost of the dog’s vet bills in damages. Ordinarily damages are capped at the market value of a piece of property—which in the case of this 13 year old dog would have been next to nothing. It was a small step to be sure, but definitely a positive one.
Comment by Meryl — December 3, 2006 @ 10:56 am